Discussion in 'Fly Fishing Forum' started by alpinetrout, Aug 19, 2006.
It's too bad the police didn't have to use lethal force on a few of those anti-fishing activists.
The bold statements you made prompt my rebuttle.
This was actually one of the longest seasons in decades. The current escapement goal is 350,000, this year thru 8/13 450,000 fish have been counted. The Lake Washington fishery was planted in the 30's, and is Baker River stock, ie not native fish, put in to be caught.
The only effective way to catch them for most people is with gear. You may find people fishing with gear on Lake WA a poor example of what fishing should be, but I am left scratching my head after seeing what goes on at Lake Lenore ( I just can't see Roderick Haig Brown out there with a bobber and choronimid), RFC, and the lower fly water on the Kalama during coho season.
Sockeye returns since they have been counting.
And no I don't fish Lake WA, the last Sockeye I bonked was caught on a fly on the Kenai.
One more thing,
I was wondering what Last Chance for Animals, LCA had to say about fishing, quotes from the link BigBill provided:
Catch and Release
Hooking a fish is a cruel and unnecessary activity. Fish begin to suffocate as soon as they are removed from their environment. Their blood coagulates, their gills often bleed and collapse, and their swim bladder may also rupture due to the pressure change. Fish may die from the stress of being caught, or they may be so weakened by the experience that they easily fall prey to predators. More specifically, the fish’s struggle to survive may cause a buildup of lactic acid in their muscles, causing stiffness and soreness and thus hampering the animal’s ability to survive. This damage may also include oxygen depletion, the loss of their protective outer coating, and damage to their delicate fins and mouth. Many fish caught in catch-and-release fishing tournaments die later as a result of their injuries, especially in hot weather when water oxygen levels are low
“Sport fishing” is also harmful to the environment. Vegetation is often cut down or trampled to make the waterside more accessible to anglers. Moreover, the presence of anglers disturbs wildlife, especially during breeding periods. Birds and mammals, for instance, are typically frightened by the noise and movement associated with fishing.
Ask local officials to ban fishing at a pond or lake in your area.
You Can Help
• Ask local officials to ban fishing at a pond or lake in your area.
• Write a letter to the editor of your local newspaper explaining what’s wrong with fishing.
• Demand that your government stop subsidizing fishing operations with your tax dollars.
• Ask the United States government to ban fishing in national parks.
Write to Secretary Gale A. Norton, Department of the Interior, 1849 C St. N.W., Washington, DC 20240.
• Distribute information on the cruelty of fishing outside of bait-and-tackle stores or in popular fishing spots.
• Protest fishing tournaments and other fishing events.
• Educate your family and friends about the cruel reality of fishing.
I am sure they are great people, and do some great work, but they don't like what we do!
That is an awesome link Andrew posted. With the exception of the one HIGHLY SUBJECTIVE sentence that states, " Hooking a fish is a cruel and unnecessary activity," The information LCA provides is pretty consistant with what I believe. Commercial fishing is friggin horrible!
Did you guys read the entire page? There is some great info there! Sure, they are a little more liberal/radical in their beliefs than I choose to be, but I still feel the information they provide is mostly correct.
You guys don't have to agree with me. I just thought I'd put the, "dont bash all animal rights folks based on the actions of a few" reminder out there early when this thread started.
I agreee with you Bill, Even though the organization you posted doesn't agree with everything we do, it doesn't mean it's a bad organization, You have to take what you can get, I feel if there doing work to help abolish animal cruelty such as pharmacutical companies injecting eye make up in to rabbits eyes to see how long it takes for them to go blind then more power to them! and that whole thing with putting baby calfs in constricting little huts and milk feeding them and harvesting them for Veal .. oh man I just can't get behind that. but! if your going to go out and hunt, I don't see a damn thing wrong with that and wouldn't mind doing some small game hunting myself, I don't object to the killing of animals for food, but I do Strongly object to killing for killings sake.
What horrible things happened to Canada and GBR when they gave up firearms? I would gladly get thrown in a river if it meant a substantial decrease in gun violence elsewhere...
Secondly, I dont know that throwing some people in a river or even beating them up warrants being shot, and/or killed. Not all violence is equal...
No, it doesn't warrant being injured or being shot, but a rock up side the head can kill someone just the same. at the very least, the old rocks, paper, scissors game is trumped when you ad the fourth hand signal. if someone was messing with you to that point and they saw you were prepared to turn the tables, then most likely they'd high tail it out of there. end of conflict.
if not, at least your not the one eating out of a tube and wearing depends for the rest of your life. near drowning and a rock smashed in your head can both cause brain damage and death. no duh! i don't know the river, but pushing people wearing waders into a river is extremely dangerous and can easily cause drowning. just ask anyone on this forum whose taken a swim without a wader belt. that is life or death right then and there, no gun needed.
Are you defending punks who punch female fly fishers in the face? at the very least, they should be put jail, if not there, the hospital is fine with me. bottomline, they are terrorists just the same as Osama IMHO. your welcome to jump in a cold river anytime you feel like it if that what floats your boat! remember to wear a wader belt!
Sometimes I get mad and wish I had a firearm to protect myself from dirtbags when fishing. But I haven't gotten one yet b/c I think pulling out a weapon in a conflict would ultimately worsen the situation.
For example, what if the person(s) you were directing your weapon at were able to get it away from you and use it against you? Or, what if having your weapon presented a situation where the people violating you can turn the tables around legally and ultimately have the right to kill you in self defense once you pull out a gun?
I definitely think if people are harrassing, throwing rocks at and physically assaulting fisherman/families they should be arrested and serve time. They also probably need a good ass kicking. But I don't think they should be shot and/or killed. People who feel this way are no better than the terrorists in question.
I don't carry a gun when I fish, but I have considered it. I do have them in the house, and would use one if needed.
Some issues one has to remember about using a gun. Only carry one if you are seriously prepared to use it! (Remember the Tacoma Mall Shooting last year, dude pointed his gun, but didn't want to fire, the kid with the AK47 looked too young....now the Good Samaritan is in a wheelchair) This ain't Hollywood or the Wild West, if you feel you, or someone you are with, are physically in danger, it is in your right (I ain't a lawyer) to shoot to kill. If don't want to do that, or can't live with the outcome, don't carry a gun. You only point a gun at someone that you are going to shoot. Aim for the body, it is the biggest target.
One other thing, if someone has broken into your home at night, it is a pretty easy to justify lethal force, whether they are armed or not. I don't think it is as clear on a river or in a parking lot.
It's interesting how many turns this has taken since Alpinetrout posted. Too bad we can't stay focused on one subject at a time. Instead of going off on tangents, can anyone respond to the original post?
What is your reaction to such an event?
What would you do if it happened to you?
What do you think can be done to prevent such acts?
Do you think animals have rights? What are they?
Are there groups to counteract such anti-sporting groups?
How can we help...?
BTW, this isn't all that's awry in the UK, check this silly shit out...
Nope, I don't "actually" know anyone at Proctor and Gamble, but i'm in Biotech so I know a bit about the company. They don't torture animals any more than fly fisherman. Big Bill, I agree you need people protesting. It keeps that whole 1st amendment thing more than just a theory. Papafish, shut yer piehole.
I was about to respond to your very cerebral questions, but then you went off on a great tangent....marketing smokes to kids!
You are absolutely wrong, proctor and gamble ranks among the worst offenders when it comes to cruel animal research. They have a burn ointment that was tested by burning live pigs to nurse them back to health using the ointment. Sick, cruel stuff.
Touche'...:beathead: :beathead: :beathead:
Opps, bad link
Try this one
Of course, you're right. Things have gotten a little off target. It's human behavior and, so it seems, easier to take a single incident, conclude that it defines an entire group of people, and use it to justify any bizzare or half-cooked idea you've got rattling around.
Actually, I think most of the posts are in fact a direct reponse to Alpinetrout's original post. It's just not obvious, anymore than it's obvious why we went to war in Iraq because al-Quaeda attacked the world trade centers.
Most of the posts, one way or another, go straight to the fear factor - fear "they" will do that here; fear that this particular group of lunatics represent animal rights activists everywhere; fear our guns will be taken away; fear that our favorite bogeyman will get away without taking the blame; fear of meth addicts, etc., etc., etc.
It's nowhere near rational, but then IS fear rational? I guess I equate rational with having as much information as possible, and then responding in as measured a fashion as possible. Of course, not everyone gets that luxury. But here we have an opportunity to be rational, about which you reminded us.
1. Amazing. How does one get so fired up about a point of view that one feels he/she has a right to deny others to make their own choice? There's some serious miswiring there, and it probably goes a lot deeper than animal rights.
2. Talk. Try to start a conversation about this, now or later. Maybe agree to disagree. Maybe back down. I'm not personally ready to martyr myself for a sport, nor to kill someone else over a different point of view.
3. Enforce the laws. Or, lacking appropriate laws, generate the publicity and political heat it takes to get the laws in place. I know, law enforcement personnel can't be everywhere, but we are a land of laws. So is GB, I think.
4. Only the rights we grant them. In reality, we humans seem to have an intellectual advantage, if not a moral advantage, so we do get to decide. If I were an animal, though, I wouldn't look for much genuine mercy. After all, we're the species that practices child abuse, kills for pleasure, and devotes so much of our creative time and energy to depriving others of their dignity (or looking the other way). Maybe the best that can be hoped for is that we would continue as a species to try to understand what if any level of consciousness an animal has, and how it works. Probably a lot to learn there.
5. I guess this would depend on what you mean by counteract.
BTW...started this with some comments about some specific responses, but when I re-read them, they seemed a little too much like personal attacks and not very rational. So, I took my own medicine.
But i can only answer question #1.
If i was rushed by any body, any age any sex in masks, i would shoot 'till empty, leave them where they fell, light a cigarette, and wait for police.